As humans in past were saved spiritually by offering animals, it is reasonable to conclude that animal testing is a kind of sacrifice that humans must do to save lives physically and emotionally. Why Animal Testing Can Save Our Lives One of the primary reasons why animal testing is considered helpful for the advance of man is the fact that it plays a significant role in the progress of medicine. Newly created drugs are safer to use by humans if they are tested on animals first.
Some people believes that it is unethical and improper to use a drug if it has not been tested on animals before (Hayhurst, 20). They argue that it is the best possible way to determine if a drug is safe or not. They clearly have a point in this argument. Apparently, they believe that human lives are much important than animal lives. “Many people who argue for animal testing agree that it's unfortunate that animals must sometimes suffer, but they feel that the pain is a small price to pay if it advances science and produces new cures for deadly diseases such as cancer and AIDS” (Hayhurst, 21).
On the other hand, people who are against animal testing argue that animal lives should also be treated with utmost importance and should not be used as sacrifices to attain something. One of the points of these people are the fact that some cosmetic manufacturers also engage in animal testing to try their products. They believe that such products are “unnecessary” for animals' health to be sacrificed (Hayhurst, 21). There is the blinding of mice to enable cosmetic manufacturers to produce a new kind of mascara and other.
They also argue that animal reactions to drugs can be quite different from that of humans. “Because of the irreconcilable biological differences between animals and human beings, the results of animal tests cannot be applied to human beings with any degree of confidence” (qtd. in Lovegrove, 14). However, it is the issue of morality and ethics that is enveloping the entire argument against animal testing. Many people on this side believes that animals have the right to live and that humans cannot just treat them in any way just because they can.
Apparently, both sides of the issue raises important points that should be considered to achieve a fair and justified treatment of the issue. Clearly, there is a lot at stake here whether in the morality or the medical advancement of human beings but both ways still considers what is good for man. Nevertheless, the problem with some animal rights activists is that, “there is too much emphasis on ethics and too little emphasis on what they perceive as scientific benefits” (qtd. in Connor).
In our present situation where diseases are rampant, it is important that people must be receptive and open-minded enough to consider tough decisions such as supporting animal testing. It is also important that people weigh the circumstances of what animal research could do in the existence and survival of mankind in the future. The problem with some activists is that they focus so much on what is happening today that they tend to forget what could happen in the future. Conclusion
Our world today is experiencing so many medical challenges such as the spread of A(H1N1) virus, cancer, AIDS and other diseases; therefore, it is important that we consider sacrificing something today to enable us to prepare for the future. In addition, these animals also benefit from the testing as their future generations also benefits from the medical progress to which they contribute. Hence, it is quite reasonable to conclude that some tough decisions and actions should be made to make this place better and safer for all of us. It is for the greater good that a few must suffer to attain something better in the future.